Ccc was regarding the stadium build, the Higgs deal came later which indeed kept the club from going into administration . To think we would have folded without that is ludicrous.
Or more likely we would have groundshared temporarily somewhere until the stadium situation could gave been sorted.....I'll repeat once more just for you.... Without a stadium that meets stringent requirements CCFC would have been "Dead in the water" Hence demotion to a league that would have meant having the "Golden Share" taken off them(Lower than Conference).... That clear enough for you?
Or more likely we would have groundshared temporarily somewhere until the stadium situation could gave been sorted.....
Or more likely we would have groundshared temporarily somewhere until the stadium situation could gave been sorted.....
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Who knows, perhaps they would have been forced to put us in administration and we could have been bought debt free by someone with the money to take us and the on the Ricoh project. But there was always another option to sell to higgs or bust. Didn't we still have a buy back option on HR at that point? They didn't save us from losing the golden share as we could have ground shared somewhere else if push had come to shove.£35m+ in the red! Where is the money coming from? We couldn't afford to buy the share remember?..... Same question I asked to hutch1972
Who knows, perhaps they would have been forced to put us in administration and we could have been bought debt free by someone with the money to take us and the on the Ricoh project. But there was always another option to sell to higgs or bust. Didn't we still have a buy back option on HR at that point? They didn't save us from losing the golden share as we could have ground shared somewhere else if push had come to shove.
Funny really, you talk about us being £35m+ in the red yet higgs saving us and then being forced to pay £1.2m rent with no access to revenues hardly helped...
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Same statement as I said earlier we didn't have two pennies to scratch our arse with mate..... You can't guarantee that would have happened.
Would you like me to point out if were not for CCC/ACL/HIGGS. CCFC wouldn't exist now. Or does that conveniently slip your mind?
Really? So tell me, how or where would CCFC have played and kept the golden share to stay in the football league without CCC/ACL/Higgs intervention with the Ricoh?
I'll repeat once more just for you.... Without a stadium that meets stringent requirements CCFC would have been "Dead in the water" Hence demotion to a league that would have meant having the "Golden Share" taken off them(Lower than Conference).... That clear enough for you?
*Edit* Just for you to mull over
http://www.efl.com/global/appendix1.aspx
Who knows, perhaps they would have been forced to put us in administration and we could have been bought debt free by someone with the money to take us and the on the Ricoh project. But there was always another option to sell to higgs or bust. Didn't we still have a buy back option on HR at that point? They didn't save us from losing the golden share as we could have ground shared somewhere else if push had come to shove.
Funny really, you talk about us being £35m+ in the red yet higgs saving us and then being forced to pay £1.2m rent with no access to revenues hardly helped...
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
This is the one defining sentence. Let's wait and see if they do. I personally think CCC will bend over backwards to help, but let's wait and see eh?
Perhaps you should heed your own advice here...
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
We're not on about sisu here are we?? We're talking about pre sisu and at the point Richardson, mcginnity and Robinson sold our share in the Ricoh.FFS stupot07, you're one poster that has some grey matter..... Due Dilligence
I'm sorry, I think you're wrong and let me explain why.
The council should act in precisely the same manner towards a business irrespective of who owns it. If the council treats a new owner of the football club significantly better than the current owners there will be a legal case to answer.
I'm sorry, I think you're wrong and let me explain why.
The council should act in precisely the same manner towards a business irrespective of who owns it. If the council treats a new owner of the football club significantly better than the current owners there will be a legal case to answer.
No, its your assertion that it was to sell to higgs or not have a ground to play in and lose the golden share. I'm just pointing out there were other options including ground sharing, buying back HR or going into admin which in hindsight would have been by far the best option back then.So the "FACT" that CCFC were thrown a lifeline is non existent then?
It would not be successful.
We're not on about sisu here are we?? We're talking about pre sisu and at the point Richardson, mcginnity and Robinson sold our share in the Ricoh.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
But we can't possibly know that a legal action wouldn't be successful at the moment.
No, its your assertion that it was to sell to higgs or not have a ground to play in and lose the golden share. I'm just pointing out there were other options including ground sharing, buying back HR or going into admin which in hindsight would have been by far the best option back then.
Tbh, i'll just leave you to it, as this has been done to death.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
It isn't the business(They wouldn't have been preferred buyers and Wasps are the same type of business) It's what that business does that defines the treatment of one business to another. You nor anybody could tell me I have to sell to someone I don't trust.. That is my decision and mine alone.
If wasps hadn't turned up. The ricoh would have gone bust thus allowing sisu to pick it up cheaply. This would then join club with stadium. Making the club worth more, to both sisu and new investors. We might of had a future.
The expression 'preferred buyer' is not relevant to what I am explaining to you. When the council used that expression in relation to a business going into administration it was using it in a technical way, not an emotional one
The local authority isn't supposed to use emotional measures to judge whether it should favour one owner of a city business over another. The council is supposed to act consistently, logically and objectively and if it isn't doing this it is going to end up paying a lot of compensation.
Unfortunately, Coventry City Council has a bit of form in this area. It is currently looking at having to give a Coventry business (Open Doors) a 7 figure compensation payment for treating it illogically and unfavourably.
I'm sorry, I think you're wrong and let me explain why.
The council should act in precisely the same manner towards a business irrespective of who owns it. If the council treats a new owner of the football club significantly better than the current owners there will be a legal case to answer.
Come on Northern you know better then that we never do buying options....or bought HR back using the option (as we did).
Discrimination, not allowed to be a sisuphobic.Based around on what?
Hutch 1972 is though. but bye the bye. Fact is CCC/ACL/HIGGS helped CCFC, and without that help we might not have a team to support today. As for Richardson, McGinnity and Robinson who sold our share in the Ricoh. Where was the money coming from to buy back HR?
Sounds like you're congratulating CCC for securing something for the Coventry tax payer and AEHT while also securing the early repayment of the loan in full. I suppose at the end of the day it is the taxpayer who CCC answer to.
Wouldn't we have had to pay off all our debts first?We could have gone into administration then we'd never have sold the rights - or if afterwards - gone into admin and sold a player to buy it back.
Discrimination, not allowed to be a sisuphobic.
We could have gone into administration then we'd never have sold the rights - or if afterwards - gone into admin and sold a player to buy it back.
And to be fair it would have if they had run it properly, ACL was the wrong company to do this unfortunately.They purchased the loan Tony and said it would be in the tax payers interest to retain it as it would make a profit.
I'm not aware they consulted the tax payer in either instance.
They purchased the loan Tony and said it would be in the tax payers interest to retain it as it would make a profit.
I'm not aware they consulted the tax payer in either instance.
They purchased the loan Tony and said it would be in the tax payers interest to retain it as it would make a profit.
I'm not aware they consulted the tax payer in either instance.
When does any council consult the taxpayer?
Based around on what?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?